SECT. II.
What is meant by Nature.
THe second Question is, What is meant by Nature? As for those who would have it to signifie no more then prorstus and vere, altogether or indeed, we have heretofore confuted; yet granting that this is part of the lease, but not the principal. For we are to take nature here for our birth-descent, as ap∣peareth partly, because the Apostle useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which doth more properly relate to our nativity, whereas before he calleth the children of diso∣bedience 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 partly, because the Apostles order is observable; for in the ori∣ginal it is, We were children by nature of anger, that is, natural children oppo∣sed to adopted ones; and partly, because the Iews pretended holiness by their nativity, because they were the seed of Abraham; which pride the Apostle would here abate, making them equal herein to the Heathen Idolaters. Nei∣ther by nature are we to understand custome only, as if the Apostle meant by it the constant custome of our actual iniquities, which useth to be called a second nature, we are made children of wrath; for the Apostle doth no where use the word so, no not in that place, 1 Cor. 11. 14. Doth not nature 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you? &c. For nature is taken both for the first principles, and also the immediate conclu∣sions deduced from them, which later the Apostle doth call nature. Therefore it is matter of wonder, that the late Annotator in his paraphrase on Ephes. 2. should take in the orthodox sense (viz. And were born, and lived, and continu∣ed in a damning condition, as all other Heathens did (observe that, born in a dam∣ning condition) should yet referre to his notes, on 1 Cor. 11. where he seem∣eth to contradict any such birth-damnation, from this of the 2d to the Ephesians: For he would understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the national custome of Idolatry amongst the Heathens; and if so then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to relate to our nativity or birth, as some translate it, which he also noteth in the margin. But though custome may be called nature, yet there is commonly some limiting expression; as when he quoteth out of Galen, that customs are acquired natures, or out of Aristotle, custome is like nature: Here are restrictive expressions, whereas Paul speaketh absolutely. And as for that instance which the learned Annotator hath out of Suidas, which the late Writer maketh use of for the corrupting of this Text, (Ʋnum Necessar. cap. 6. Sect. 2.) it doth very fairly make against them. For Suidas upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inlarging himself, and particularly making it to sig∣nifie the principle of motion, and rest of a thing, essentially and not by acci∣dent (alluding happily to Aristotles definition) doth after this, adde, But when the Apostle saith we we were by nature the children of wrath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he doth not speak of nature in this sense, because this would be the fault of him that created us. All which is very true, and doth di∣rectly oppose Manicheism; We do not say, there is any evil nature, or that the primordials of our nature were thus corrupted. They that hold pure natu∣rals cannot answer this reason of Suidas, it doth militate against them. But we affirm this corruption of our nature came in by Adam's voluntary transgressi∣on. So that in this sense we call it naturale malum, as Austin; and quodammod••